Kirsters Baish| It was reported by nraila.org that a 9th Circuit three-judge panel ruled in the case of Duncan v. Becerra this past Tuesday. The court upheld a lower court’s previous decision in favor of postponing enforcing the state of California’s restriction on individual possession of magazines which hold ten or more rounds of ammunition.
National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action’s executive director, Chris W. Cox, explained, “This is a significant win for law-abiding gun owners in California. This unconstitutional law criminalizes mere possession of many standard capacity magazines and would instantly turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals.”
With the National Rifle Association’s support, the California Rifle and Pistol Association lawyers were looking for an injunction again the California magazine ban. They claimed that the ban was in direct violation of our Constitution’s Second Amendment. It was agreed on by a federal district court judge, who then issued a beginning injunction before the law was to be enforced. The decision was appealed by the state of California.
The 9th Circuit upheld the injunction this past Tuesday. In the meantime, “in the trial court, a motion for summary judgment is pending and a ruling on the merits of the case is expected soon. Regardless of the outcome, the case will most certainly be appealed again to the 9th Circuit. By that time, the Supreme Court will likely have a new justice who respects the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.”
“Tuesday’s ruling was a step in the right direction. The National Rifle Association will continue to fight for the rights of Californians to protect themselves,” Cox stated.
National Review reports:
Every now and then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — arguably the nation’s most progressive federal circuit — can offer up a legal surprise. Yesterday, it gave us a legal shock, when a divided panel of its judges affirmed last year’s federal district-court injunctiontemporarily blocking enforcement of California’s confiscatory ban on so-called large-capacity magazines.
Under California law, any person who possesses a legally purchased magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition must either remove the magazine from the state, sell it to a licensed firearm dealer, or hand it over to law enforcement. Those citizens who retained their magazines after the law went into effect risked a fine or up to one year’s imprisonment in county jail.
The National Review concluded:
Gun-owners choose large-capacity magazines for good reasons, the same reasons why police carry large-capacity magazines in their service weapons. When a deadly encounter occurs, the amount of ammunition can make the difference between life and death. The state cannot be permitted to take a common means of self-defense from its citizens. Thankfully, even in the Ninth Circuit, confiscation has been held at bay.
It is important to keep in mind the reason our country’s Constitution exists in the first place. We cannot put limits on the safety of our citizens. Why shouldn’t a law abiding citizen be able to carry enough ammunition to protect themselves and those around them? This is why we have Constitutional Rights in the first place. Liberals had really ought to get a grip before they totally destroy everything our country was built on.